One tale of property, in my own words

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
45 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The power of the State to alter the conditions of land use through planning laws continues to attract theorisation at the possible intersection between planning and property. As planning laws become more complex, and by needs responsive to environmental degradation - including the consequences of climate change - landowners will arguably suffer loss of market value of their land despite broader community benefit. This article analyses the contention that land planning regulation is itself property - a claim made by Paul Babie in this journal in 2016. It does so in four parts, focusing on the law’s own construction of both real property and planning permissions. It analyses the nature, content and source of the estate in fee simple in Queensland, followed by analysis of Penner’s ‘bundle of rights’ argument to ascertain whether planning laws might be comprehended within this conception of property. It goes on to assess planning permissions in terms of Honore’s incidents of property before establishing the nature, content and source of planning rights. Finally, it clarifies how planning law responds to climate change, suggesting that downstream liabilities rather than front-line environmental protection is at stake. In conclusion, it posits a conceptualisation of property alternative to that of Babie.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)157-169
Number of pages13
JournalGriffith Law Review
Volume27
Issue number1
Early online date7 Mar 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Mar 2018

Fingerprint

planning
Law
construction law
climate change
environmental damage
environmental protection
fee
liability
incident
land use
regulation
market
community

Cite this

@article{5f6ac0ffc1714da0bcce0608f64bedf2,
title = "One tale of property, in my own words",
abstract = "The power of the State to alter the conditions of land use through planning laws continues to attract theorisation at the possible intersection between planning and property. As planning laws become more complex, and by needs responsive to environmental degradation - including the consequences of climate change - landowners will arguably suffer loss of market value of their land despite broader community benefit. This article analyses the contention that land planning regulation is itself property - a claim made by Paul Babie in this journal in 2016. It does so in four parts, focusing on the law’s own construction of both real property and planning permissions. It analyses the nature, content and source of the estate in fee simple in Queensland, followed by analysis of Penner’s ‘bundle of rights’ argument to ascertain whether planning laws might be comprehended within this conception of property. It goes on to assess planning permissions in terms of Honore’s incidents of property before establishing the nature, content and source of planning rights. Finally, it clarifies how planning law responds to climate change, suggesting that downstream liabilities rather than front-line environmental protection is at stake. In conclusion, it posits a conceptualisation of property alternative to that of Babie.",
author = "Kathrine Galloway",
year = "2018",
month = "3",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1080/10383441.2018.1443385",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "157--169",
journal = "Griffith Law Review",
issn = "1038-3441",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "1",

}

One tale of property, in my own words. / Galloway, Kathrine.

In: Griffith Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, 07.03.2018, p. 157-169.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - One tale of property, in my own words

AU - Galloway, Kathrine

PY - 2018/3/7

Y1 - 2018/3/7

N2 - The power of the State to alter the conditions of land use through planning laws continues to attract theorisation at the possible intersection between planning and property. As planning laws become more complex, and by needs responsive to environmental degradation - including the consequences of climate change - landowners will arguably suffer loss of market value of their land despite broader community benefit. This article analyses the contention that land planning regulation is itself property - a claim made by Paul Babie in this journal in 2016. It does so in four parts, focusing on the law’s own construction of both real property and planning permissions. It analyses the nature, content and source of the estate in fee simple in Queensland, followed by analysis of Penner’s ‘bundle of rights’ argument to ascertain whether planning laws might be comprehended within this conception of property. It goes on to assess planning permissions in terms of Honore’s incidents of property before establishing the nature, content and source of planning rights. Finally, it clarifies how planning law responds to climate change, suggesting that downstream liabilities rather than front-line environmental protection is at stake. In conclusion, it posits a conceptualisation of property alternative to that of Babie.

AB - The power of the State to alter the conditions of land use through planning laws continues to attract theorisation at the possible intersection between planning and property. As planning laws become more complex, and by needs responsive to environmental degradation - including the consequences of climate change - landowners will arguably suffer loss of market value of their land despite broader community benefit. This article analyses the contention that land planning regulation is itself property - a claim made by Paul Babie in this journal in 2016. It does so in four parts, focusing on the law’s own construction of both real property and planning permissions. It analyses the nature, content and source of the estate in fee simple in Queensland, followed by analysis of Penner’s ‘bundle of rights’ argument to ascertain whether planning laws might be comprehended within this conception of property. It goes on to assess planning permissions in terms of Honore’s incidents of property before establishing the nature, content and source of planning rights. Finally, it clarifies how planning law responds to climate change, suggesting that downstream liabilities rather than front-line environmental protection is at stake. In conclusion, it posits a conceptualisation of property alternative to that of Babie.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85043308405&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10383441.2018.1443385

DO - 10.1080/10383441.2018.1443385

M3 - Article

VL - 27

SP - 157

EP - 169

JO - Griffith Law Review

JF - Griffith Law Review

SN - 1038-3441

IS - 1

ER -